Author Topic: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry  (Read 2038 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,606
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®

Technically, they could do that, because similar obstruction charges were part of the articles of impeachment, being drawn up for Nixon.

Yep.  The Dem case for the Article would be severely weakened if a court agrees Congress does not have the authority to compel witnesses in a non-Impeachment related hearing, like this one.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,248
  • Gender: Female
  • Pray for peace but train for war.
Well, today the Democrats issued a subpoena for the Ambassador.  Let's see them enforce it.

Schitt also announced a refusal of this subpoena would be an Article of Impeachment (obstruction), if such a thing ever came to a vote.

From my understanding, they have only started an "Inquiry" into impeachment.... vs. an official Impeachment hearing....

so any "subpoena" the rats issue is invalid and should only be considered a "request".   If that is incorrect, can somebody please post the explanation?  Another issue that I am thoroughly confused about.  And I suspect that the rats are intentionally muddying these waters to confuse the public.

Time for unity in America! (better late than never)


Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,606
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
From my understanding, they have only started an "Inquiry" into impeachment.... vs. an official Impeachment hearing....

so any "subpoena" the rats issue is invalid and should only be considered a "request".   If that is incorrect, can somebody please post the explanation?  Another issue that I am thoroughly confused about.  And I suspect that the rats are intentionally muddying these waters to confuse the public.

You bet your sweet bippy they're trying to muddy the waters, and I'd bet a week's pay they're shopping for an Obama or Clinton Judge to declare any subpoenas "valid and binding."  Sure, it would be overturned but the damage will be done.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,248
  • Gender: Female
  • Pray for peace but train for war.
You bet your sweet bippy they're trying to muddy the waters, and I'd bet a week's pay they're shopping for an Obama or Clinton Judge to declare any subpoenas "valid and binding."  Sure, it would be overturned but the damage will be done.

So... what's the solution?   Should the Supreme Court rule on it?   Heard that Clarence Thomas is suffering from an illness.   Let's hope that it is "just the flu".   But I put nothing past the radical left these days.

https://www.westernjournal.com/justice-clarence-thomas-missing-start-new-supreme-court-term-due-illness/

Time for unity in America! (better late than never)


Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,606
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
So... what's the solution?   Should the Supreme Court rule on it?   Heard that Clarence Thomas is suffering from an illness.   Let's hope that it is "just the flu".   But I put nothing past the radical left these days.

https://www.westernjournal.com/justice-clarence-thomas-missing-start-new-supreme-court-term-due-illness/

I believe the Ambassador can request a summary Judgement today.  IANAL.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline The Ghost

  • Very Special Agent and
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,915
  • Gender: Male
Yep.  The Dem case for the Article would be severely weakened if a court agrees Congress does not have the authority to compel witnesses in a non-Impeachment related hearing, like this one.

Quote
Any House impeachment probe is not a court case, but it has elements in common with a trial, or at least with a grand jury proceeding. Without a formal opening of the inquiry and without clear rules, the target of the probe (Trump) is being denied both clarity and appropriate notice, both of which are necessary for a fair defense. In such circumstances, he has both a moral and arguably a greater legal right to refuse executive branch cooperation. Without an official vote for an inquiry and without official rules providing at least something akin to trial-defense rights, this is less an equitable proceeding than it is a star chamber.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,606
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®


All the Rats need is for a friendly Obastard or Clinton Judge to declare Schitt's "subpoenas" valid and binding, "fairness" be damned.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
So... what's the solution?   Should the Supreme Court rule on it?   Heard that Clarence Thomas is suffering from an illness.   Let's hope that it is "just the flu".   But I put nothing past the radical left these days.


There is already a precedent from SCOTUS, in the Nixon v United States case. In that ruling, the justices decided 8-0 (Renquist recused) executive privilege could not be asserted to keep testimony and evidence away from Congress. Impeachment is a constitutional process, which requires gathering of evidence. Those who are subpoenaed would likely face obstruction charges of their own, with stricter enforcement potentially being imposed, if they declined. That would require a formal impeachment process, which would open the door for Republicans obtaining subpoena power of their own, to mount a defense. Those people would be under the same jeopardy of obstruction or contempt.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,606
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®

There is already a precedent from SCOTUS, in the Nixon v United States case. In that ruling, the justices decided 8-0 (Renquist recused) executive privilege could not be asserted to keep testimony and evidence away from Congress. Impeachment is a constitutional process, which requires gathering of evidence. Those who are subpoenaed would likely face obstruction charges of their own, with stricter enforcement potentially being imposed, if they declined. That would require a formal impeachment process, which would open the door for Republicans obtaining subpoena power of their own, to mount a defense. Those people would be under the same jeopardy of obstruction or contempt.

Are you prepared to say Shitt is running an "Impeachment Inquiry?"  Speaker Pelosi isn't.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,606
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
Oh goody!  Shemp Smith is on to tell me what to think!
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Are you prepared to say Shitt is running an "Impeachment Inquiry?"  Speaker Pelosi isn't.


No, I’m saying for those conditions to be in effect, a formal impeachment process would have to be in place. That, however, is a double edged sword. Ranking Republicans on the appropriate committees will also have the same subpoena powers. There is a story out there that Schiff had discussed the whistleblower complaint, prior to its filing. That would make him a witness.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 03:08:37 PM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,248
  • Gender: Female
  • Pray for peace but train for war.

There is already a precedent from SCOTUS, in the Nixon v United States case. In that ruling, the justices decided 8-0 (Renquist recused) executive privilege could not be asserted to keep testimony and evidence away from Congress. Impeachment is a constitutional process, which requires gathering of evidence. Those who are subpoenaed would likely face obstruction charges of their own, with stricter enforcement potentially being imposed, if they declined. That would require a formal impeachment process, which would open the door for Republicans obtaining subpoena power of their own, to mount a defense. Those people would be under the same jeopardy of obstruction or contempt.

Exactly the point (which I guess I wasn't clear on).  Unless or until the rats open a formal impeachment process vs. merely an inquiry, none of the subpoenas amount to a San Francisco pile of...er.... well, you get the drift.
Time for unity in America! (better late than never)


Offline The Ghost

  • Very Special Agent and
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,915
  • Gender: Male

There is already a precedent from SCOTUS, in the Nixon v United States case. In that ruling, the justices decided 8-0 (Renquist recused) executive privilege could not be asserted to keep testimony and evidence away from Congress. Impeachment is a constitutional process, which requires gathering of evidence. Those who are subpoenaed would likely face obstruction charges of their own, with stricter enforcement potentially being imposed, if they declined. That would require a formal impeachment process, which would open the door for Republicans obtaining subpoena power of their own, to mount a defense. Those people would be under the same jeopardy of obstruction or contempt.

Yet, as the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Nixon, the privilege is not absolute. Granted, the Nixon case involved judicial review, not congressional review, but the principles involved are similar.(Maybe..maybe not -emphasis  the ghost) ) The more formally and logistically a congressional probe is conducted procedurally such as a criminal trial, the greater the weight of Congress’s power to pierce the veil of executive branch confidentiality involving a State Department official.

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,248
  • Gender: Female
  • Pray for peace but train for war.

No, I’m saying for those conditions to be in effect, a formal impeachment process would have to be in place. That, however, is a double edged sword. Ranking Republicans on the appropriate committees will also have the same subpoena powers. There is a story out there that Schiff had discussed the whistleblower complaint, prior to its filing. That would make him a witness.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower

Which is yet another reason (and there are several) why the rats don't want to open an official, formal impeachment hearing.   They've got too much to lose if their side is placed under oath.
Time for unity in America! (better late than never)


Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Which is yet another reason (and there are several) why the rats don't want to open an official, formal impeachment hearing.   They've got too much to lose if their side is placed under oath.


Yes, in the current scenario, their powers to subpoena are fairly weak, as I pointed out in post 19.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,378512.msg2070191.html#msg2070191
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,606
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®

No, I’m saying for those conditions to be in effect, a formal impeachment process would have to be in place. That, however, is a double edged sword. Ranking Republicans on the appropriate committees will also have the same subpoena powers. There is a story out there that Schiff had discussed the whistleblower complaint, prior to its filing. That would make him a witness.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower

I agree with that, and it's one of the reasons given that Schiff should not be leading any investigation of the so-called "dog-whistleblower."  He's made himself a witness to the facts of the case, by virtue of his contacts with the person prior to the filing of the report.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
A bit of a side story…

The White House has reached out to outside lawyers for impeachment counsel, according to a person familiar.

One of the lawyers they reached out to is Trey Gowdy, a former congressman and an ex-federal prosecutor. He now regularly appears on Fox News.


https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-08-2019/h_afb06fe7b6ff08e44eee6755427682dd

I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,172
  • Gender: Male
  • Dont B a tough guy.Dont B a fool.I will call u l8r
This is what the LORD Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.  Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other."

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,079
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
That's what the rats want to know.
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf


Glad to see you haven't changed a bit in your cherry picking of thigns out of context.

And now...the rest of the story:

Quote
"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions," Sondland wrote back. "The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelenskiy promised during his campaign.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy


Amazing how you libs continue to lie by omission about the actual conversation and how out of context you're taking stuff to fit your false narrative.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,555
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
Glad to see you haven't changed a bit in your cherry picking of thigns out of context.

And now...the rest of the story:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy


Amazing how you libs continue to lie by omission about the actual conversation and how out of context you're taking stuff to fit your false narrative.


Thanks for pointing out the dishonesty in the post you are replying to.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 05:12:16 PM by austingirl »
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,041
  • Gender: Female
Glad to see you haven't changed a bit in your cherry picking of thigns out of context.

And now...the rest of the story:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy


Amazing how you libs continue to lie by omission about the actual conversation and how out of context you're taking stuff to fit your false narrative.

Yes, that's rotten.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,079
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Yes, that's rotten.

@Sanguine @austingirl and look at the time span between the two texts.

The left wants you to ignore that there is 34 minutes between those cut and pasted texts like nothing else was said during that time.

Well guess what there was something said that puts the whole conversation into perspective.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,555
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
@Sanguine @austingirl and look at the time span between the two texts.

The left wants you to ignore that there is 34 minutes between those cut and pasted texts like nothing else was said during that time.

Well guess what there was something said that puts the whole conversation into perspective.

Indeed.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline The Ghost

  • Very Special Agent and
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,915
  • Gender: Male
Yes, that's rotten.

I was shocked, shocked I tell you he would go that low.

Someone should kick his butt so hard he'd be whistling through his hemorrhoids.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
The left wants you to ignore that there is 34 minutes between those cut and pasted texts like nothing else was said during that time.


OK, but there’s another problem with a different exchange.


“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” wrote Taylor.

Nearly five hours later, Sondland responded with a formal-sounding statement that could be seen as attempting to cover for any potential illicit behavior from the White House and ends communication via text.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” wrote Sondland. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”



Sondland said ‘call me’ and that is exactly what Taylor did. There was obviously something in that conversation that bothered Taylor, because he referred to it, in the text. There was a five hour gap in his response to Taylor and a couple news outlets are reporting that in that timeframe, Sondland spoke directly with Trump. Sondland is a bit out of his area, since Ukraine is not part of the EU. Is it an obvious, damning CYA exchange? Not quite, but it’s also not exactly a ‘nothing to see here,’ either.


Two news organizations have now confirmed a New York Times report about a phone call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, apparently giving Sondland talking points on the issue, which was the impetus for the investigation by the House Intelligence Committee.

-snip-

On Tuesday, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reported that during the five hours between texts, Sondland was in phone contact with Trump. The New York Times also reported the conversation last week. Sondland is not a career diplomat but a businessman, the founder and chairman of the Provenance chain of hotels, and a Republican donor who contributed $1 million to the Trump inauguration before his appointment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sondland-phone-call-texts-impeachment-200820883.html
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf